Mr. Forth:
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain irony in the fact that we are debating the issue against the background of secular falling fuel prices; the reduction in taxes on domestic fuel--which, as I said in an earlier intervention, has a dubious logic to it; and global warming--if one believes in that concept--and climate change. Against the background of those changes, is it not ironic that we are being asked to accept that the problem of alleged fuel poverty is as great as, or greater than, it was?

Mr. St. Aubyn:
My right hon. Friend is perhaps confusing two issues: a reduction in fuel costs, and energy conservation measures. Part of the Bill's thrust is energy conservation, which is a vital part of fulfilling our commitment, at Kyoto and before, to reduce energy consumption. However, the Government have undermined

that commitment by their switch from gas-fired to coal-powered electricity stations. That was a retrograde step, and I hope that the Government will rethink it. If we are serious about energy conservation, we should be serious about how we produce energy. To that extent, I agree with my right hon. Friend.

1.18 pm

Liz Blackman (Erewash):
Like many other hon. Members, I feel that I cannot begin my speech without congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on addressing an important issue in his Bill. I should also not like to miss the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on all their work on this very important issue.

saved in other housing maintenance projects. That has the effect of driving up the value of their homes as well as enabling them to live more comfortably. As a result, poorer housing, often in urban areas, is improved and that helps to stop migration and increase vitality in urban areas.

1.24 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
I add my voice to the many that we have heard from both sides congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). He has presented a good case very well. Several Labour Members have praised him and expressed the worry that, by doing so, they may damage his reputation among Conservatives. I am happy to assure them and my hon. Friend that, despite all the congratulations that he has received, we shall all still love and revere him as much as we always have done--indeed, possibly more so, because the Bill is in such a good cause. I feel strongly that the principles behind the Bill are very good and I hope that the Government act on them. I am also speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, which is in favour of the principles of the Bill and believes that it should receive a Second Reading this afternoon. If it proves necessary, I shall accompany my hon. Friend into the Lobby to vote for it.

excited the interest of hon. Members on both sides. There are also funding issues, which need to be addressed, as well as the question of the Government's record and, more important, their intentions towards the Bill and the principles that lie behind it.

Audrey Wise (Preston):
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the contribution of poor people to global warming is proportionately far less than that of most of us? Poor people spend less on vehicles and other pollutants. A pensioner with a one-bar electric fire does not contribute as much to global warming as any of us. Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Green:
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It would be a more sensible use of public policy to prevent as many people as possible--the poor pensioner surviving on not enough fuel or anyone else--from contributing to global warming. There are ways--the principles behind the Bill support them--in which we can improve our environmental performance without disadvantaging anyone.

has been updated by the Government and I know that they are thinking of ways to improve it further. As technology advances, we can all think of new ways of improving the energy efficiency of homes. That need not divide us.

Now that he is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he has every chance of being as supportive as he could want to. Responsibility has been accepted by the Cabinet Minister responsible for controlling public expenditure, so he must know how the aims of the Bill can be achieved without increasing public expenditure. Otherwise, the figures that the Chief Secretary has published would be misleading, and that cannot be the case. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House about the funding mechanism and how it fits in with the Government's current spending targets.